2011 Pa. Super. 21 - Commonwealth v. McMillan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “is a pervasive scheme of legislation which suspends an individual's constitutional rights to privacy only for the limited purpose of permitting law enforcement officials, upon a showing of probable cause, to gather evidence necessary to bring about a criminal prosecution and conviction. The statute sets forth clearly and unambiguously by whom and under what circumstances these otherwise illegal practices and their derivative fruits may be used. However, the Wiretap Act contains an exception allowing law enforcement to utilize wiretaps without obtaining prior judicial approval when one of the parties to the conversation consents to the interception: § 5704. Exceptions to prohibition of interception and disclosure of communications It shall not be unlawful and no prior court approval shall be required under this chapter for: * * * (2) Any investigative or law enforcement officer or any person acting at the direction or request of an investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication involving suspected criminal activities, including, but not limited to, the crimes enumerated in section 5708 (relating to order authorizing interception of wire, electronic or oral communications), where: * * * (ii) one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception. However, no interception under this paragraph shall be made unless the Attorney General or a deputy attorney general designated in writing by the Attorney Ge”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Glass

2. “After [the victim] indicated she was upset about the rumors circulating about their sexual encounters, she asked [the appellant] if he had told anyone about them. [The appellant] repeatedly denied telling anyone, but empathized with [the victim’s] feelings, especially since people were discussing the situation four years later. When asked if he had sex with any other students, [the appellant] answered in the negative. [The appellant] asked [the victim] to keep him updated on the situation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Ruder

3. “unless ... an assistant district attorney ... has reviewed the facts and is satisfied that the consent is voluntary[.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Glass